M5 faster than SRT10 Viper
#26
Super Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Maryland
Posts: 947
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
04E55AMG, 05Dodge RAM 1500 Quad Cab, 02Montero Limited
I have walked away from SRT-10 Vipers but off course my car is modded. It goes without saying if a new M5 lines up next to me they will suffer the same results.
#27
***-get the M5 - let's just get TVR to import their cars to the US and be done with it - they're probably half the price of the M5! The Cebera in that list is like a 10 year old design and it's right on the tail of the M5!
#28
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2000 W210 E55->2003 R230 SL500->2004 W211 E55->2007 997TT+2007 E63->2010 GLK350->2012 E550 4matic
Originally Posted by Jon200
We all know what the competition is, do you see us posting in bimmerforums about forthcoming AMGs? You're just pathetic
go check out the C32/55 section, there is a nice videobut I am guessing you prob would have seen it already but I just wanted to make sure you troll in the right forums
go check out the C32/55 section, there is a nice videobut I am guessing you prob would have seen it already but I just wanted to make sure you troll in the right forums
Rather strange priorities, some may call this textbook insecurity complex.
#29
Originally Posted by M&M
OK so there are many people waiting for the M5 to hit US strips. Quite hard to predict what the M5 will hit based on Euro tests. They always test will full tank, passenger, etc. Added to that their test venues are normally airfields which are unprepped & have poor traction.
You have provided nothing.
Further, you have implied that US mags *do* test on "prepped surfaces". Again, I'd like to see some documentary evidence to support this, because despite repeated requests, you have provided no proof of this claim either.
Proof, please.
#30
M&M the hypocrite...as usual
In this thread, our seemingly moderator-proof troll and compensated BMW spokesman Monkey&Moron uses acceleration data from an *M6* to extrapolate acceleration data for an *M5*. Obviously, Monkey&Moron believes this to be a legitimate scientific method--as long as *he's* doing it, and as long as the vehicle involved is a *BMW*.
But if it is *not* him, and the vehicle is *not* a BMW, amazingly enough, he seems to view this technique in a different light...you see, not so long ago, I, in another post discussing the E55, used acceleration data from the SL55 and CL55, which are heavier than the E55 and have the same motor and drivetrain, to compare acceleration data to the M5. My rationale being that if the SL55 is heavier than the E55, yet has the same motor and driveline, then the E55 should be faster from a roll than the SL55, as it is lighter.
So, what did Monkey&Moron say to this methodology when it *wasn't* him using it and the vehicle in question *wasn't* a BMW?
Have a look:
Hmm, so why is it you're now using the lighter M6 to claim acceleration superiority when there are several tests for the M5, of which you are doubtlessly aware and have posted on multiple occasions, hypocrite?
In fact, in the same post in which you lectured me about using SL55 acceleration data in an E55 discussion, you managed to dig up some M5 test data, and you have posted it several times since.
But now, you have the *****, after lecturing me about using test data for different models, to do the *exact same thing*.
Pathetic.
Well, here is the M5 test data, Monkey boy, and it's a bit slower than the M6...and since you don't think it's valid to use different models, even when they have the same driveline and engine, well, sorry, but we just have to hold you to your own standard and insist that you use only M5 data.
http://www.einszweidrei.de/bmw/m5e602004-1.htm
0 - 80 km/h 3,4 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,4 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,3 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,5 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,3 s
0 - 180 km/h 11,5 s
0 - 200 km/h 13,9 s
http://www.einszweidrei.de/bmw/m5e60v102004-3.htm
0 - 80 km/h 3,5 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,5 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,9 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,4 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,2 s
0 - 180 km/h 11,6 s
0 - 200 km/h 13,8 s
Autocar's road test of E60 M5: 1/4 mile time = 12.8:
Italian test of E60 M5 as reported on M5board: 1/4 mile of 12.58 seconds:
Hmmmm....I believe that Vipers run a bit faster than this....ah, yes, per your own data: Viper road test: 11.77 second 1/4 mile:
But if it is *not* him, and the vehicle is *not* a BMW, amazingly enough, he seems to view this technique in a different light...you see, not so long ago, I, in another post discussing the E55, used acceleration data from the SL55 and CL55, which are heavier than the E55 and have the same motor and drivetrain, to compare acceleration data to the M5. My rationale being that if the SL55 is heavier than the E55, yet has the same motor and driveline, then the E55 should be faster from a roll than the SL55, as it is lighter.
So, what did Monkey&Moron say to this methodology when it *wasn't* him using it and the vehicle in question *wasn't* a BMW?
Have a look:
Originally Posted by paid BMW spokeswhore and troll Monkey&Moron
Impro-man, can I ask you a question. All this talk of the superfast SL55 & CLS55 & whatever. These cars have different rear-end, cD, weight, etc. WHy not just use the damn E55? Is there any reason you keep avoiding using those tests?
In fact, in the same post in which you lectured me about using SL55 acceleration data in an E55 discussion, you managed to dig up some M5 test data, and you have posted it several times since.
But now, you have the *****, after lecturing me about using test data for different models, to do the *exact same thing*.
Pathetic.
Well, here is the M5 test data, Monkey boy, and it's a bit slower than the M6...and since you don't think it's valid to use different models, even when they have the same driveline and engine, well, sorry, but we just have to hold you to your own standard and insist that you use only M5 data.
http://www.einszweidrei.de/bmw/m5e602004-1.htm
0 - 80 km/h 3,4 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,4 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,3 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,5 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,3 s
0 - 180 km/h 11,5 s
0 - 200 km/h 13,9 s
http://www.einszweidrei.de/bmw/m5e60v102004-3.htm
0 - 80 km/h 3,5 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,5 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,9 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,4 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,2 s
0 - 180 km/h 11,6 s
0 - 200 km/h 13,8 s
Autocar's road test of E60 M5: 1/4 mile time = 12.8:
Italian test of E60 M5 as reported on M5board: 1/4 mile of 12.58 seconds:
Hmmmm....I believe that Vipers run a bit faster than this....ah, yes, per your own data: Viper road test: 11.77 second 1/4 mile:
Last edited by Improviz; 07-02-2005 at 01:00 AM.
#32
Originally Posted by Improviz
Hmmmm....I believe that Vipers run a bit faster than this....ah, yes, per your own data: Viper road test: 11.77 second 1/4 mile:
And from the same site you provided, the E55 times (http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/e55amg2003-1.htm):
0 - 80 km/h 3,3 s M5: 3,4 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,6 s 4,4 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,9 s 5,3 s
0 - 130 km/h - s - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,6 s 7,5 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,8 s 9,3 s
0 - 180 km/h 12,2 s 11,5 s
0 - 200 km/h 14,6 s 13,9 s
I went throught several M5 articles but couldnt find the sentence "These numbers were produced at a airfield". But I did find many where the word airfield was mentioned or the pictures indicated that the M5 had been at one. And I know there arent many dragstrips around, maybe a few in a country and their used (exclusively?) by dragsters.
Improviz, be a pal and help me out here. Ive already proven that the Viper was run on a dragstrip, you prove that the M5 was too...
Last edited by Mardeth; 07-02-2005 at 04:33 AM.
#33
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by Mardeth
As I presumed, that time was achieved at a dragstrip. (http://motortrend.com/roadtests/coup...gt/index1.html, thrid paragraph.)
And from the same site you provided, the E55 times (http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/e55amg2003-1.htm):
0 - 80 km/h 3,3 s M5: 3,4 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,6 s 4,4 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,9 s 5,3 s
0 - 130 km/h - s - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,6 s 7,5 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,8 s 9,3 s
0 - 180 km/h 12,2 s 11,5 s
0 - 200 km/h 14,6 s 13,9 s
I went throught several M5 articles but couldnt find the sentence "These numbers were produced at a airfield". But I did find many where the word airfield was mentioned or the pictures indicated that the M5 had been at one. And I know there arent many dragstrips around, maybe a few in a country and their used (exclusively?) by dragsters.
Improviz, be a pal and help me out here. Ive already proven that the Viper was run on a dragstrip, you prove that the M5 was too...
And from the same site you provided, the E55 times (http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/e55amg2003-1.htm):
0 - 80 km/h 3,3 s M5: 3,4 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,6 s 4,4 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,9 s 5,3 s
0 - 130 km/h - s - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,6 s 7,5 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,8 s 9,3 s
0 - 180 km/h 12,2 s 11,5 s
0 - 200 km/h 14,6 s 13,9 s
I went throught several M5 articles but couldnt find the sentence "These numbers were produced at a airfield". But I did find many where the word airfield was mentioned or the pictures indicated that the M5 had been at one. And I know there arent many dragstrips around, maybe a few in a country and their used (exclusively?) by dragsters.
Improviz, be a pal and help me out here. Ive already proven that the Viper was run on a dragstrip, you prove that the M5 was too...
#34
MBWorld Fanatic!
Amazing that NOWHERE IN THE WORLD has an M5 OWNER taken their car to a dragstrip to run from a dig. I guess we'll have to sit patiently until they are relased here, hopefully, later in 2005. Still no answer as to whether the M5 will have launch control in the US?
I find it pretty strange that a magazine touted as one of the "premier" magazines of the world, if not the "best" runs acceleration tests on dusty airfields. I don't know, I never seem to drive on dusty airfields. If I looked for one, I'd have a hard time finding it. If I paid money for a magazine to give me acceleration figures, I expect the "best" magazine to use something close to a reasonably grippy surface. Are they running acceleration tests or tire grip tests?
As for the SRT, drivers posting on drag times have been all over the place. From high 11's to low 12's. It is a very driver-dependent car.
I find it pretty strange that a magazine touted as one of the "premier" magazines of the world, if not the "best" runs acceleration tests on dusty airfields. I don't know, I never seem to drive on dusty airfields. If I looked for one, I'd have a hard time finding it. If I paid money for a magazine to give me acceleration figures, I expect the "best" magazine to use something close to a reasonably grippy surface. Are they running acceleration tests or tire grip tests?
As for the SRT, drivers posting on drag times have been all over the place. From high 11's to low 12's. It is a very driver-dependent car.
#35
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: MB - World
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M&M
Originally Posted by Improviz
In this thread, our seemingly moderator-proof troll and compensated BMW spokesman Monkey&Moron uses acceleration data from an *M6* to extrapolate acceleration data for an *M5*. Obviously, Monkey&Moron believes this to be a legitimate scientific method--as long as *he's* doing it, and as long as the vehicle involved is a *BMW*.
But if it is *not* him, and the vehicle is *not* a BMW, amazingly enough, he seems to view this technique in a different light...you see, not so long ago, I, in another post discussing the E55, used acceleration data from the SL55 and CL55, which are heavier than the E55 and have the same motor and drivetrain, to compare acceleration data to the M5. My rationale being that if the SL55 is heavier than the E55, yet has the same motor and driveline, then the E55 should be faster from a roll than the SL55, as it is lighter.
So, what did Monkey&Moron say to this methodology when it *wasn't* him using it and the vehicle in question *wasn't* a BMW?
Have a look:
Hmm, so why is it you're now using the lighter M6 to claim acceleration superiority when there are several tests for the M5, of which you are doubtlessly aware and have posted on multiple occasions, hypocrite?
In fact, in the same post in which you lectured me about using SL55 acceleration data in an E55 discussion, you managed to dig up some M5 test data, and you have posted it several times since.
But now, you have the *****, after lecturing me about using test data for different models, to do the *exact same thing*.
Pathetic.
Well, here is the M5 test data, Monkey boy, and it's a bit slower than the M6...and since you don't think it's valid to use different models, even when they have the same driveline and engine, well, sorry, but we just have to hold you to your own standard and insist that you use only M5 data.
http://www.einszweidrei.de/bmw/m5e602004-1.htm
0 - 80 km/h 3,4 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,4 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,3 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,5 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,3 s
0 - 180 km/h 11,5 s
0 - 200 km/h 13,9 s
http://www.einszweidrei.de/bmw/m5e60v102004-3.htm
0 - 80 km/h 3,5 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,5 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,9 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,4 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,2 s
0 - 180 km/h 11,6 s
0 - 200 km/h 13,8 s
Autocar's road test of E60 M5: 1/4 mile time = 12.8:
Italian test of E60 M5 as reported on M5board: 1/4 mile of 12.58 seconds:
Hmmmm....I believe that Vipers run a bit faster than this....ah, yes, per your own data: Viper road test: 11.77 second 1/4 mile:
But if it is *not* him, and the vehicle is *not* a BMW, amazingly enough, he seems to view this technique in a different light...you see, not so long ago, I, in another post discussing the E55, used acceleration data from the SL55 and CL55, which are heavier than the E55 and have the same motor and drivetrain, to compare acceleration data to the M5. My rationale being that if the SL55 is heavier than the E55, yet has the same motor and driveline, then the E55 should be faster from a roll than the SL55, as it is lighter.
So, what did Monkey&Moron say to this methodology when it *wasn't* him using it and the vehicle in question *wasn't* a BMW?
Have a look:
Hmm, so why is it you're now using the lighter M6 to claim acceleration superiority when there are several tests for the M5, of which you are doubtlessly aware and have posted on multiple occasions, hypocrite?
In fact, in the same post in which you lectured me about using SL55 acceleration data in an E55 discussion, you managed to dig up some M5 test data, and you have posted it several times since.
But now, you have the *****, after lecturing me about using test data for different models, to do the *exact same thing*.
Pathetic.
Well, here is the M5 test data, Monkey boy, and it's a bit slower than the M6...and since you don't think it's valid to use different models, even when they have the same driveline and engine, well, sorry, but we just have to hold you to your own standard and insist that you use only M5 data.
http://www.einszweidrei.de/bmw/m5e602004-1.htm
0 - 80 km/h 3,4 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,4 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,3 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,5 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,3 s
0 - 180 km/h 11,5 s
0 - 200 km/h 13,9 s
http://www.einszweidrei.de/bmw/m5e60v102004-3.htm
0 - 80 km/h 3,5 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,5 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,9 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,4 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,2 s
0 - 180 km/h 11,6 s
0 - 200 km/h 13,8 s
Autocar's road test of E60 M5: 1/4 mile time = 12.8:
Italian test of E60 M5 as reported on M5board: 1/4 mile of 12.58 seconds:
Hmmmm....I believe that Vipers run a bit faster than this....ah, yes, per your own data: Viper road test: 11.77 second 1/4 mile:
#36
Originally Posted by enzom
Amazing that NOWHERE IN THE WORLD has an M5 OWNER taken their car to a dragstrip to run from a dig. I guess we'll have to sit patiently until they are relased here, hopefully, later in 2005. Still no answer as to whether the M5 will have launch control in the US?
I dont normally go against anyone on forums. But Improviz's way of writing annoys me. Making demands which he self cant fulfill...
Now finally to the point. I havent heard of any M5s going to a strip, no numbers to my knowledge have been published. Like I said, there arent many dragstrips around and even less let street cars run. No news on the US LC front.
#37
Improviz I am so sock & tired of arguin with you. You are an insecure idiot & I hope you find something in your life that gets you out of your rot.
You CANNOT compare the Viper's time from Road & Track to the M5's time donw by Sport Auto. PRETTY PLEASE tell me your liitle brain can comprehend that?
When ROad & Track tests the M5, THEN you can compare ROAD & TRACK's test of the M5 to ROAD & TRACK's TEST of the Viper.
Now, I have posted results FROM THE SAME F&*KEN MAG, showing the M6 faster than the Viper. In fact I'v posted 2 different mags having the same result.
IN FACT THESE WERE SHOOT OUTS WHERE THEY TOOK ALL THE CARS TO THE TRACK TOGETHER. SO THE CARS WERES TESTED ON THE SAME DAY.
BTW the M5 & M6 are mechanically identical except for the 98lb weight difference.
You CANNOT compare the Viper's time from Road & Track to the M5's time donw by Sport Auto. PRETTY PLEASE tell me your liitle brain can comprehend that?
When ROad & Track tests the M5, THEN you can compare ROAD & TRACK's test of the M5 to ROAD & TRACK's TEST of the Viper.
Now, I have posted results FROM THE SAME F&*KEN MAG, showing the M6 faster than the Viper. In fact I'v posted 2 different mags having the same result.
IN FACT THESE WERE SHOOT OUTS WHERE THEY TOOK ALL THE CARS TO THE TRACK TOGETHER. SO THE CARS WERES TESTED ON THE SAME DAY.
BTW the M5 & M6 are mechanically identical except for the 98lb weight difference.
#38
Imp, you keep comparing tests on on different planets with different timing equipment, etc. But answer me this. WHy don't you use the same mag?
Autocar got 12.8 for the M5, but 13.1 for the E55. Look it up & post it now, or else your point is invalid.
The italian mag got 12.5 for the M5 & 12.9 for the E55.
Autocar got 12.8 for the M5, but 13.1 for the E55. Look it up & post it now, or else your point is invalid.
The italian mag got 12.5 for the M5 & 12.9 for the E55.
#41
Originally Posted by paid BMW spokeswhore Monkey&Moron
Improviz I am so sock & tired of arguin with you. You are an insecure idiot & I hope you find something in your life that gets you out of your rot.
You CANNOT compare the Viper's time from Road & Track to the M5's time donw by Sport Auto. PRETTY PLEASE tell me your liitle brain can comprehend that?
You CANNOT compare the Viper's time from Road & Track to the M5's time donw by Sport Auto. PRETTY PLEASE tell me your liitle brain can comprehend that?
Furthermore, I believe that it was YOU who included the Viper test from Motor Trend in YOUR original post, right moron?
Originally Posted by paid BMW spokeswhore Monkey&Moron
Now, just so the armchair experts can predict perfromance on US shores, here's MotorTrend's test of the SRT10:
http://motortrend.com/roadtests/cou...dgt/index5.html
1/4 mile in 11.77 @ 123.63.
http://motortrend.com/roadtests/cou...dgt/index5.html
1/4 mile in 11.77 @ 123.63.
Secondly, are you out of your frigging mind? You're ALWAYS comparing magazine tests from different mags.
Originally Posted by paid BMW spokeswhore Monkey&Moron
When ROad & Track tests the M5, THEN you can compare ROAD & TRACK's test of the M5 to ROAD & TRACK's TEST of the Viper.
Originally Posted by paid BMW spokeswhore Monkey&Moron
Now, I have posted results FROM THE SAME F&*KEN MAG, showing the M6 faster than the Viper. In fact I'v posted 2 different mags having the same result.
Well, if I can't do it, why should you be able to do it, my hypocritical little Monkey boy?
Originally Posted by paid BMW spokeswhore Monkey&Moron
IN FACT THESE WERE SHOOT OUTS WHERE THEY TOOK ALL THE CARS TO THE TRACK TOGETHER. SO THE CARS WERES TESTED ON THE SAME DAY.
BTW the M5 & M6 are mechanically identical except for the 98lb weight difference.
BTW the M5 & M6 are mechanically identical except for the 98lb weight difference.
If it was invalid for me to use SL55 acceleration data before, when the SL55 is *heavier* than the E55 but otherwise mechanically identical, to make a point about the E55's acceleration capabilities, then why is it now suddenly valid for you to use M6 acceleration data to hypothesize about that of an M5, particularly when M5's aren't testing as fast as the M6??
As usual, your blatant disregard for honesty and your incredible hypocrisy have been exposed for all to see.
#42
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: MB - World
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are an insecure idiot & I hope you find something in your life that gets you out of your rot.
You are the biggest idiot by comparing M5, M6 and viper times in an E55 forum, ffs get a grip, people can't be that thick over there
You CANNOT compare the Viper's time from Road & Track to the M5's time donw by Sport Auto. PRETTY PLEASE tell me your liitle brain can comprehend that?
#43
Originally Posted by Jon200
You are the biggest idiot by comparing M5, M6 and viper times in an E55 forum, ffs get a grip, people can't be that thick over there
go read of some your posts
Originally Posted by paid BMW spokeswhore Monkey&Moron
You CANNOT compare the Viper's time from Road & Track to the M5's time donw by Sport Auto. PRETTY PLEASE tell me your liitle brain can comprehend that?
Monkey boy using M3 and C55 tests from multiple magazines in a comparison:
Monkey boy using M3 tests (of course, he picked the fastest ones) from multiple magazines to prove a point:
#45
Hey Chimp, E55 & SL55 have different rear ends. That's makes a BIG DIFFERENCE. They have different drag coefficients & frontal areas & their weight difference is more than 98lb.
M5 & M6 have EXACTLY THE SAME REAR END & gear ratios. They have EXACTLY the same drag co-efficient & there frontal areas are the same as well.
But anyway, in an ideal world you cannot really compare 2 cars even though they are almost identical. SO then I will rephrase to make you happy.
The M6 (NOT THE M5) is faster than the SRT10 as tested by 2 of Europes most respected mags (both sets of cars tested on the same day by the same driver, etc).
There, you happy?
And I'm not setting any rules. If you want to compare times done by Sport Auto to those done by Road & TRack, then go ahead. You are onlygoing to fool yourself. There's a reason Autocar got the E55 to do 13.1 @ 115mph & the M5 12.8 @ 119mph. Their times are VERY slow because of their test teechnique & surface.
SO is it fair if I compare Autocars E55 run of 13.1 @ 115 to this M6 test done by a different mag (AMS) 0-100 in 8,7, 1/4 mile in 12.2 @ 121.25mph:
M5 & M6 have EXACTLY THE SAME REAR END & gear ratios. They have EXACTLY the same drag co-efficient & there frontal areas are the same as well.
But anyway, in an ideal world you cannot really compare 2 cars even though they are almost identical. SO then I will rephrase to make you happy.
The M6 (NOT THE M5) is faster than the SRT10 as tested by 2 of Europes most respected mags (both sets of cars tested on the same day by the same driver, etc).
There, you happy?
And I'm not setting any rules. If you want to compare times done by Sport Auto to those done by Road & TRack, then go ahead. You are onlygoing to fool yourself. There's a reason Autocar got the E55 to do 13.1 @ 115mph & the M5 12.8 @ 119mph. Their times are VERY slow because of their test teechnique & surface.
SO is it fair if I compare Autocars E55 run of 13.1 @ 115 to this M6 test done by a different mag (AMS) 0-100 in 8,7, 1/4 mile in 12.2 @ 121.25mph:
Last edited by M&M; 07-03-2005 at 03:48 AM.
#46
The M6 has better tyres, weight distribution and less mass therefore the M6 will be measurebly faster than the M5, which has been shown.
The e55 and sl55 are rated differently and different mass drag etc etc and untiil there is a crank dyno test by a reputable source showing that they actually are both putting out the same crank numbers we don't know for sure.
Its conclusive that the M6 is the fastest of the 4 cars and in all probability the M5 will be the second fastest but only by a tenth or two at the most over the AMG's by the 1/4 but increasing from there. The easiest way is to be patient and wait for something a bit more conclusive.
The e55 and sl55 are rated differently and different mass drag etc etc and untiil there is a crank dyno test by a reputable source showing that they actually are both putting out the same crank numbers we don't know for sure.
Its conclusive that the M6 is the fastest of the 4 cars and in all probability the M5 will be the second fastest but only by a tenth or two at the most over the AMG's by the 1/4 but increasing from there. The easiest way is to be patient and wait for something a bit more conclusive.
#47
Originally Posted by reggid
The M6 has better tyres, weight distribution and less mass therefore the M6 will be measurebly faster than the M5, which has been shown.
The M6 is faster than the M5, I'm not doubting that. In fact the M6 on average is faster than the Sl/CL65 to 124pm. I'm sure Impro can do the math & average all the tests.
#49
Originally Posted by paid BMW spokeswhore and troll Monkey & Moron
Hey Chimp, E55 & SL55 have different rear ends. That's makes a BIG DIFFERENCE. They have different drag coefficients & frontal areas
E55:
Weight: 4087
Cd: 0.27
Final drive: 2.65:1
SL55:
Weight: 4280
Cd: 0.30
Final drive: 2.87:1
note that "NO DATA" is displayed at the AMG site linked to from MBUSA.com, so the following data are from edmunds.com
CL55:
Weight: 4255 pounds
Cd: 0.28
Final drive: no data on website.
So, in other words, the E55 has the lowest weight and best Cd of the three, meaning that SL55 data should be slower than E55. Conversely, the M6 weighs less and has a lower Cd than the M5, meaning it should be faster than the M5, particularly at high speeds due to its lower Cd.
Therefore, it was MORE valid for me to use the SL55 data to illustrate the performance of the E55 than it is for you to use the M6 to illustrate the performance of the M5.
Originally Posted by paid BMW spokeswhore and troll Monkey & Moron
& their weight difference is more than 98lb.
Yet now, you want to use data from the LIGHTER M6, which has a BETTER Cd than the M5, to show how fast the M5 is. So what's the difference? Simple. In my case, I was arguing that since the SL55 was heavier and had a poorer Cd, the E55 would be faster up high. You, otoh, are arguing that the M6 and M5 should accelerate at exactly the same rate, even though the M6 is lighter and has a better Cd.
The funny thing about you is that no matter how many times I prove that you're a total ignoramus who lies, cheats, and deceives in virtually every post, you keep coming back here and acting as though there are people on this board who believe what you're claiming.
Originally Posted by paid BMW spokeswhore and troll Monkey & Moron
M5 & M6 have EXACTLY THE SAME REAR END & gear ratios. They have EXACTLY the same drag co-efficient & there frontal areas are the same as well.
Both of the following links are from BMW's website:
Cd for M5: 0.31
Cd for M6: 0.26
Idiot.
Originally Posted by paid BMW spokeswhore and troll Monkey & Moron
But anyway, in an ideal world you cannot really compare 2 cars even though they are almost identical. SO then I will rephrase to make you happy.
The M6 (NOT THE M5) is faster than the SRT10 as tested by 2 of Europes most respected mags (both sets of cars tested on the same day by the same driver, etc).
There, you happy?
The M6 (NOT THE M5) is faster than the SRT10 as tested by 2 of Europes most respected mags (both sets of cars tested on the same day by the same driver, etc).
There, you happy?
Originally Posted by paid BMW spokeswhore and troll Monkey & Moron
And I'm not setting any rules. If you want to compare times done by Sport Auto to those done by Road & TRack, then go ahead. You are onlygoing to fool yourself. There's a reason Autocar got the E55 to do 13.1 @ 115mph & the M5 12.8 @ 119mph. Their times are VERY slow because of their test teechnique & surface.
For the fourth time now: PROVE IT!!
If you can't prove it, stop making this claim. Sheesh....can't your teeny little brain comprehend this??
#50
Impro, how about I don't prove it. How about you just accept that Autocar tested the E55 at 13.1? You see it doesn't matter to me what technique they use, BECAUSE the M5 is tested by the same euro mags. If the M5 gets 12.8 @ 119 & the same mag got the E55 13.1 @ 115, I actually don't care what the technique was. The point has been proven.
BAck to your SL55 story. Why do you keep projecting what the E55 will do based on the SL55? WTF? The same mag tested the E55. They got 14.6 to 124.
http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/e55amg2003-1.htm
Test in sport auto 01/2003
Gewicht 1944 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,3 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,6 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,9 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,6 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,8 s
0 - 180 km/h 12,2 s
0 - 200 km/h 14,6 s
CONVENIENTLY FORGOT TO NOTE THAT DUMMY.
That's right there goes your argument. SL55 did xyz so E55 should DEF, WTF? E55 has een around for a while. All the tests have been done & the fastest any mag on planet earth got for the 0-124 is 14.6. Live with it.
BAck to your SL55 story. Why do you keep projecting what the E55 will do based on the SL55? WTF? The same mag tested the E55. They got 14.6 to 124.
http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/e55amg2003-1.htm
Test in sport auto 01/2003
Gewicht 1944 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,3 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,6 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,9 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,6 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,8 s
0 - 180 km/h 12,2 s
0 - 200 km/h 14,6 s
CONVENIENTLY FORGOT TO NOTE THAT DUMMY.
That's right there goes your argument. SL55 did xyz so E55 should DEF, WTF? E55 has een around for a while. All the tests have been done & the fastest any mag on planet earth got for the 0-124 is 14.6. Live with it.